ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
The durability of revisional sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass after previous adjustable gastric band.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Revisional Bariatric Surgery: From Sleeve Gastrectomy to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass.Obesity surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Adjuvant and Neo-Adjuvant Anti-Obesity Medications and Bariatric Surgery: A Scoping Review.Current obesity reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with adjustable gastric banding (AGB) often require revision to one-stage or two-stage sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB).
objectiveTo compare the long-term durability of revisional SG and RYGB, in terms of subsequent revision or conversion (RC).
methodsThe New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative Systems dataset was queried from 2006 to 2013 for patients who underwent primary SG and RYGB, one-stage, and two-stage conversion from AGB to SG and RYGB. Patients who required RC were identified. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was used to compare the RC risk among these groups.
results13,749 had primary SG, 621 one-stage, and 321 two-stage AGB to SG. 31,814 had primary RYGB, 555 one-stage, and 248 two-stage AGB to RYGB. The estimated 5-year cumulative RC incidence rate was significantly lower after primary surgery than after prior AGB (one-stage AGB to SG 14.4%, two-stage AGB to SG 11.6%, primary SG 5.2%, one-stage AGB to RYBG 3.4%, two-stage AGB to RYGB 2.9%, and primary RYGB 1.1%, p-value < 0.0001). RYGB and SG did not differ significantly in terms of the elevation effect of one- and two-stage AGB conversion over primary surgeries (RYGB vs SG: one stage vs primary ratio of HR = 0.97, 95% CI = [0.58, 1.63], p-value = 0.9153; two stage vs primary ratio of HR = 1. 02, 95% CI = [0.50, 2.07], p-value = 0.9596).
conclusionRC after AGB to SG or RYGB is more frequent compared to primary surgeries with procedures following AGB to SG being more common than AGB to RYGB. However, that difference was proportionally similar to the RC rate ratio differences noted for primary SG and RYGB.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.